The Equation » Angela Andersonhttp://blog.ucsusa.org
a blog on independent science + practical solutionsFri, 31 Jul 2015 22:13:31 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3The Pope on Climate Change, Science, and Morality: Can His Message Change the Conversation?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/AQ-DGIJK6pI/the-pope-on-climate-change-science-and-morality-758
http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-pope-on-climate-change-science-and-morality-758#commentsFri, 12 Jun 2015 17:24:03 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=36827Pope Francis has something important to say about climate change, and deniers who have used religion as their last bastion should take note. In this Pope’s world, science and religion are calling in harmony – and with urgency – for action on climate. The Pope is a leader of many firsts: the first Latin American pontiff, the first Jesuit, likely the first with a chemistry degree, and the first to issue a formal teaching for Catholics around the world that equates climate action with caring for one another. A recent poll indicates he will reach a very receptive audience.

I first learned of the Pope’s pending encyclical on climate change while preparing to make remarks on climate change during the Earth Day service at my church. Questions about faith and science, climate change as a moral issue, and individual responsibility swirled in my mind as I struggled to create a message that would communicate the urgency of sea level rise, global average temperature increase, and the impacts of extreme weather — without triggering the polarization that is often triggered by discussions of this sort, especially in a suburban DC congregation.

I have never felt there was a disconnect between my Christian faith and my work for what scientists have told us about our planet – and neither does Pope Francis, who not only received a technical degree in chemistry, but has also benefitted from a Vatican convening of scientists and social scientists to inform the forthcoming encyclical.

A workshop organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), and Religions for Peace on April 28, 2015 concluded with this decisive and urgent statement on climate change. Image: 350.org

I came across an April speech by Cardinal Peter K A Turkson previewing the encyclical. In it he explained that the Pope was conscious of this same dynamic when developing the climate statement. The Cardinal reported that “the Holy Father said that one of the challenges he faces in his encyclical on ecology is how to address the scientific debate about climate change and its origins. The Pope knew that the encyclical would have its critics and challengers if it asserted that human causation was scientific fact.”

Speculation on the reaction to the Pope’s teaching on climate change began late last year. This Guardian article from December wonders about U.S. reaction given the existence of climate-doubting politicians and groups like the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which it said claimed to represent “millions of Evangelical Christians” and has previously declared the U.S. environmental movement to be a false religion.

As predicted, climate change foot-draggers and deniers have been gearing up to undermine influence of the encyclical. It is unfortunate that some conservatives, who speak more for an ideology than a religion, have already dismissed the Pope before reading his words. They stand not on scientific consensus but on shaky ground.

Katherine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and evangelical Christian, did an interview last week and discussed climate denial among Christians at length and pointed out that climate denial doesn’t usually originate with religious leaders: “Where are we Christians getting the idea that the science is fake? Those ideas don’t originate with our pastors or our Christian leaders (although many of them propagate the ideas). It’s the conservative media, whose values and ideology many of us evangelicals agree with and trust, who are telling us it’s not real. There’s nothing in the Bible that says it isn’t.”

She goes on to say that climate denial among religious conservatives confuses politics and faith. “There is nothing in the Bible that says that you can’t be a Christian if you care about creation and what climate change is doing to it. The problem is really not with our faith. The problem is that for many of us, we’ve forgotten what our faith is.”

Sustainability and climate change are not political and economic issues — they are moral issues

News reports indicate that the encyclical will assert that sustainability and climate change are not political and economic issues — they are moral issues. It will point to harm to human beings that result from climate change – from reduced drinking water availability to growing hunger to complete inundation of communities — and sometimes entire countries — by rising seas. The encyclical will also bring a theological lens to the politicized climate conversation, citing scripture that links God’s greatness with the grandeur of the earth; calling for stewardship, and calling out the failure to protect the earth as sacrilegious. And it will reaffirm that the burden of climate change or attempts to deal with climate change should not be borne solely by the poor – those whom Jesus called “the least of these” – but should be shouldered by those to whom the most has been given.

Throughout the Hayhoe interview, she echoed those themes, sliding seamlessly from science to scripture saying, “The Bible says that we humans were given responsibility over “every living thing” on this planet. It talks about how choices have consequences, and how we are called to love others as Christ loved us. All of this is compatible with caring for the creation with which God has entrusted us and, even more, caring for others who are being harmed by our actions or our neglect.”

The Latin title of the encyclical is, “Praise be (Laudato Si’), on the care of our common home” from the Canticle of the Sun. I love this title. It signals to me that caring for each other is a value that supersedes our disagreements and debates. This theme follows from the notion that inflicting harm on the planet is morally wrong, because it inflicts harm on another human being. We should stop inflicting harm on the environment and instead use our energies to help the people most affected by it, who often have the least capacity to cope with it.

Feature image: Jeffrey Bruno/Flickr

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-pope-on-climate-change-science-and-morality-758/feed31http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-pope-on-climate-change-science-and-morality-7586 Reasons I Am Optimistic COP 20 in Lima Will Help Avert the Climate Crisishttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/88DxfD-06Bw/6-reasons-i-am-optimistic-cop-20-in-lima-will-help-avert-the-climate-crisis-763
http://blog.ucsusa.org/6-reasons-i-am-optimistic-cop-20-in-lima-will-help-avert-the-climate-crisis-763#commentsFri, 12 Dec 2014 21:03:02 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=33694I have been attending the annual meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 2006 and this rarified, diplomatic process has been inspiring, frustrating, and sometimes profoundly depressing. Having stepped back from engaging in the details of the negotiations the past couple of years, I was able to observe them this year in Lima from a new perspective. And I believe we are actually making progress.

Prospects for meeting the stated goals of these negotiations—keeping global average temperature rise below 2 degrees centigrade—has dimmed as more time has passed without significant reversals in emissions trends. But there were some encouraging signs that the global cooperation the UNFCCC was meant to foster could very well be able to guide the world toward that goal.

1) U.S.-China Deal Previews New Ways of Working: The U.S.-China deal is raising expectations for Brazil, South Africa, India, and other emerging economies to announce their plans for reducing greenhouse gases. The agreement in Paris is supposed to reflect a decision reached at last year’s annual climate meeting in Warsaw that all countries, except the poorest of nations, will publicly announce the actions they will take to lower levels of carbon pollution. Nations have until March 2015 to make their contributions known. The early actions of Europe, China, and the U.S. will put pressure on others to act.

A family waits inside a shelter in Borongan, Philippines after being evacuated ahead of Typhoon Hagupit/Ruby. Photo: Damien Riquet/Flickr

2) Facing the Realities of Climate Impacts: Recognition has been slow in coming that we must simultaneously prepare for climate impacts while we reduce the risk. Over the past few years, the adaptation needs of poorer countries have been elevated, standards and processes have been established for assessing needs, and investments have been made. By specifically outlining the steps they will take in national adaptation plans–from emergency response measures to building sea walls–these countries stand a better chance of attracting the resources needed. Industrialized countries like the U.S. are beginning to ‘mainstream’ adaptation into its foreign aid around the world. There is still much to be done in this area, but the work to date is a great example of how the UNFCCC is evolving into a body that provides practical support for getting things done on the ground

3) Promises Are Being Kept: Progress at the talks have often been stalled because poorer nations needed to see rich countries deliver on promises to provide money and technological know-how to help them adapt to climate change and pursue green growth strategies. Traditionally, pledges of financial support have been sporadic and came from a handful of countries. In Copenhagen in 2009, countries agreed for the first time to a specific financial goal that was real money: $ 100 billion a year annually by 2020. The next year they established the Green Climate Fund to receive and manage much of those resources. Over the course of the last few weeks, commitments to the new fund topped $10 billion – indications that maybe this time, financial promises will be kept.

4) Moving from What to How: Until recently, the UN process was still focused on the ‘what’ and not the ‘how.’ The goal has been to get countries to commit to the most ambitious emissions reductions possible, without much attention on how to achieve those reductions. Earlier this year, small island nations urged the negotiators to launch discussions of renewable energy as a way to showcase a low-carbon development path—one that doesn’t rely solely on fossil fuels to provide energy access to the poor. As my colleague Rachel Cleetus pointed out earlier this week, renewable energy became a hot topic in Lima. Dozens of side events focused on energy, and environmental groups allied as the Climate Action Network (or CAN International) launched an ambitious effort to move the world to 100 percent renewable energy as a means to reaching the global goal of staying below 2C.

5) Peer Pressure is Powerful: The U.S., along with the world’s most industrialized countries, invited scrutiny of their policies and progress on climate change as part of a new process that may well be a key component of the Paris agreement. The U.S. reported that it is on track to reduce emissions 17 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, due largely to policies to reduce car and truck emissions, a suite of new energy efficiency standards, land use changes, and fuel switching from coal to gas in the power sector. China, South Africa, Europe, and other nations challenged the U.S. to explain why it wasn’t doing more and questioned whether new policies or the economy were driving the drop in emissions. Watching the U.S. and other countries be subject to examination by their peers provided a preview of how the new climate regime may work. It illustrated the potential for this approach to hold each other accountable and learn from others’ progress and challenges. The new process will also provide important information that calls out real climate leadership and exposes countries that are lagging behind to international criticism.

6) A ‘’Durable’’ Deal is Emerging: Climate change is not a problem that will be solved in a year or a decade. Combatting climate change requires wholesale changes in the way we operate our economies and live our lives. While immediate action is urgent, we will spend the next century getting emissions under control and managing the inevitable realities of the warming already with us. What the negotiations seem to be morphing into is an international system of accountability, support, innovation, and improvement.

The potential significance of the new agreement that is set to come out of next year’s meeting in Paris is not just the emissions and finance goals for the next decade that will make the headlines – though they are essential. It is the foundation it provides to make the next decade a stepping stone to the continual work needed to reverse global warming trends by mid-century. And that is a reason to be hopeful. Because the alternative–failure to effectively work together to address this uniquely global problem that can literally make the planet unlivable–is unthinkable.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/6-reasons-i-am-optimistic-cop-20-in-lima-will-help-avert-the-climate-crisis-763/feed0http://blog.ucsusa.org/6-reasons-i-am-optimistic-cop-20-in-lima-will-help-avert-the-climate-crisis-763Facebook “Dislikes” ALEC’s Climate Change and Clean Energy Deceptionhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/jsDPl3KxgIE/facebook-dislikes-alecs-climate-change-and-clean-energy-deception-669
http://blog.ucsusa.org/facebook-dislikes-alecs-climate-change-and-clean-energy-deception-669#commentsMon, 29 Sep 2014 14:10:40 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=32133It was welcome news last week that social media giant Facebook is “likely” to cease its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) this year, following the lead of Microsoft and Google to become, as The Guardian reported, “the latest tech company to end its support for a controversial rightwing lobby group that works against climate change legislation.” Yelp and Yahoo joined the abandon ALEC movement last week too. Our friends at Forecast the Facts have been turning up the heat on many of these companies to ‘walk their talk.’

UCS has targeted Facebook because the company was in the awkward position of advocating for more of our electricity to come from renewable sources while simultaneously funding ALEC, a group that has attacked clean energy policies in more than a dozen states—the very policies driving the prolific growth of wind and solar power that Facebook claims to support. UCS members sent thousands of emails to Facebook earlier this year calling on the company them to sever their ties with ALEC.

Apparently, Facebook and other Internet-giant members tried to push for change from within ALEC at its most recent meeting, making a powerful case for the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy, based on their own business experience of investing in wind and solar power to offset energy use at data centers. But the case was a tough sell considering that ALEC counts Exxon, Koch Industries and other major fossil-fuel companies among its more than 300 leading corporate members.

Creating doubt instead of finding climate solutions

When any company seeks to deceive the public about the problems their products cause, they need to be held accountable. Internal corporate memos show that, for years, fossil fuel companies knew about the climate-warming and other effects of burning oil and coal, but conspired together to deceive and mislead the public. Exxon, for example, admits in its internal memos that carbon pollution is very dangerous to the planet, and yet it paid some of the same PR people the tobacco companies used to create doubt in our minds about the settled science of global warming.

Recent research has indicated that two-thirds of all industrial carbon dioxide and methane released to the atmosphere can be traced to fossil fuel and cement production by just 90 entities, 50 of which are investor owned companies, such as Chevron, Exxon-Mobil BP, Shell, and Peabody Energy.

www.carbonvisuals.com (Creative Commons: Attribution)

The fact that these major carbon producers are in the business of extracting fossil fuels does not, in and of itself, make them the bad guys. But we need to hold them to account for how they reacted to the evidence that burning fossil fuels was causing Earth’s temperature to warm and glaciers to melt, exposing us—their consumers—to a litany of future of dangerous storms, drought, wildfires, and flooding. Did they come clean about the damage they knew they were causing or seek to diversify or find ways to make their product less damaging? No. They used organizations like the Heartland Institute and ALEC to deny the evidence, sow doubt and confusion, and block efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy currently sit on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Council and, in recent years, they have joined BP, Chevron, and Shell as members of ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force. This task force is the source of ALEC’s “model” bills, legislation to repeal state renewable energy standards and roll back regional climate initiatives such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (among other things).

Industry associations like ALEC have become attractive vehicles for corporations to covertly foster unpopular actions that might hurt their ‘brand.’ Chevron, for example, simultaneously runs their ‘we agree’ ad campaign, publicly promoting their solutions orientation to environmental problems while funding ALEC and other associations that block progress on clean energy and climate.

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt answered a caller’s question on NPR’s Diane Rehm show, saying, “the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring. And the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”

More than 80 corporations and 400 state legislators have dropped their support for ALEC amid increased public scrutiny of the group’s role in spreading disinformation about renewable energy, climate change, and other pressing issues. One of those companies is a major carbon producer: ConocoPhillips was involved in ALEC, but quit.

This country needs a robust and honest debate on the best ways to address climate change — how to reduce emissions causing the problems and how to prepare for the impacts we can no longer avoid. Efforts to deny, delay, and deceive have gone on long enough. It’s time for the major coal, oil, and gas companies to follow the lead of Conoco and Facebook, abandoning ALEC’s obstructionist tactics on climate and clean energy.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/facebook-dislikes-alecs-climate-change-and-clean-energy-deception-669/feed1http://blog.ucsusa.org/facebook-dislikes-alecs-climate-change-and-clean-energy-deception-669Obama’s Commencement Speech on Climate Change: A Graduation Day to Rememberhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/v5ksP17So58/obama-commencement-speech-on-climate-change-563
http://blog.ucsusa.org/obama-commencement-speech-on-climate-change-563#commentsMon, 23 Jun 2014 18:03:29 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=30314Commencement speakers have mostly been in the news lately for the speeches they didn’t give. Most of the speeches are dull and formulaic. President Obama bucked the trend and made headlines with a speech at UC Irvine laying out an impassioned case for action on climate change.

“We know what we see with our own eyes. Out West, firefighters brave longer, harsher wildfire seasons; states have to budget for that. Mountain towns worry about what smaller snowpacks mean for tourism. Farmers and families at the bottom worry about what it will mean for their water. In cities like Norfolk and Miami, streets now flood frequently at high tide. Shrinking icecaps have National Geographic making the biggest change in its atlas since the Soviet Union broke apart.”

The president not only noted these realities, he introduced a new policy to help: a $1 billion fund for communities preparing for the impacts of climate change.

A tale of two resilience funds

The president and his administration have been talking for a while about the need to invest in climate preparedness and resilience. The National Climate Assessment said that climate change has ceased to be a problem of the future and has now “moved firmly into the present.”

The president is acting on the reality that a certain level of future warming is already locked in by current emissions. The rising sea levels, heavier rains, and stronger wildfires that communities across the nation are already facing will only continue, so investing in preparedness and resilience now to prevent future damages makes good sense. Investments in preparedness pay dividends, with $4 in benefits for every $1 in costs.

The president’s proposed budget, released earlier this year, called for a $1 billion climate resilience fund spread across multiple federal agencies. Sadly, though, the president’s resilience fund is not likely to pass. Why? The president had an amazingly insightful answer for that in his commencement speech too:

“And today’s Congress, though, is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence about climate change. They will tell you it is a hoax, or a fad… Now, their view may be wrong — and a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future — but at least they have the brass to say what they actually think. There are some who also duck the question. They say — when they’re asked about climate change, they say, “Hey, look, I’m not a scientist.” And I’ll translate that for you. What that really means is, “I know that manmade climate change really is happening, but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot, so I’m not going to admit it.”

Resilience in action

HUD recently announced funding for six projects in New York and New Jersey that will make the area more resilient to future storms. Image: Rebuild by Design

The proposal the president announced at UC Irvine bypasses Congress altogether. It is overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through existing Community Development Block Grants—Disaster Recovery funding. It will make competitive grants to state and local governments in presidentially-declared disaster areas from 2011, 2012, and 2013, funding projects to help those communities rebuild and improve their resilience to future disasters. About $820 million dollars of the resilience fund will be available nationwide, while $180 million will be reserved for areas affected by Hurricane Sandy.

So what could the new National Disaster Resilience Competition actually fund? In response to Hurricane Sandy, HUD launched the Rebuild by Design competition that will help communities prepare for extreme weather events. Communities across the nation that are also confronting other kinds of climate impacts might have some ideas for how these new resources could be put to use.

Keene, New Hampshire, has faced three 100-year floods in the past decade. Local officials have been frustrated in their rebuilding efforts by the fact that FEMA will not make funds available to expand the capacity of culverts. The new resilience fund could help fill that need.

The Santa Fe National Forest, the Valles Caldera, and Bandelier National Monument have all implemented fuels treatments over the years and many of those treated areas fared well in the fire; it was the virtually untreated areas that burned with the greatest intensity. Image: Flickr, lasconchasfire3

In the aftermath of the Las Conchas fire, Santa Clara Pueblo in New Mexico has faced repeated flooding due to fire damage in the watershed. With its budget strained by the expense of rebuilding from the fire and flooding, the Pueblo has been unable to build the emergency dam necessary to prevent future flood damage. The new resilience fund could provide the necessary resources.

Rising sea levels threaten to render Florida’s water infrastructure inoperable. The necessary responses, whether replacing flood gates built for lower sea levels or drilling new wells in response to saltwater intrusion, are a heavy burden for the already strained budgets of local governments. The new resilience fund could help fund these vital projects.

More action needed

While the president’s announcement is a welcome step in investing in climate preparedness, a one-time infusion of $1 billion will not be enough to meet the nation’s growing resilience needs.

Congress’s climate deniers will eventually have to pull their heads out of the sand. A permanent climate resilience fund with annual funding is needed to ensure that every community is able to take the necessary steps to protect itself from fires, flooding, and the other dangerous impacts of climate change. Permanent steps to reduce emissions that make these disasters worse must be taken as well.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/obama-commencement-speech-on-climate-change-563/feed0http://blog.ucsusa.org/obama-commencement-speech-on-climate-change-563Spring Break in Florida: A Lesson in the Costs of Climate Changehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/sNWWqChzljw/florida-costs-of-climate-change-492
http://blog.ucsusa.org/florida-costs-of-climate-change-492#commentsMon, 21 Apr 2014 20:19:14 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=28846One of the country’s favorite Spring Break destinations is facing an uncertain future. The longest maintained tide stations in the state indicate that seas at Florida shores have risen 8 to 9.5 inches per 100 years. High tides alone are frequently flooding low-lying areas. Four hundred football field’s worth of sand disappears each year from the beaches we love. The Army Corps of Engineers has found that there is no longer enough replacement sand onshore, making it necessary to import it at an estimated cost of $32 million by 2017.

The sophisticated system of canals and drainage systems that made coastal beach communities possible are becoming less effective as seawater makes its way up the canals. Salt water is contaminating drinking wells and beaches. According to a Florida Atlantic University study, with just a few inches of additional sea level rise, the drainage system could see its capacity drop by 70 percent as ocean water makes its way into the pipes. Miami is considering a $200 million renovation for pumps and pipes.

Is Congress getting its head out of the sand?

Although the federal government has been slow to respond to climate change – and far too many members of Congress have their heads in the sand when it comes to the consequences of climate change – the challenges communities like those in South Florida are facing are becoming undeniable. Elected leaders on the national stage are beginning to realize the need to learn more and to help meet these challenges.

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Photo: Wikimedia Commons

That’s why Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is using his Spring Break to hold a public hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space at the Miami Beach City Hall. Witnesses will discuss the economic impacts of climate change to Florida’s tourism and insurance industries, as well as efforts to reduce the carbon emissions that drive climate change. Scientists from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Florida Atlantic University will discuss sea level rise projections. The representatives of local Chamber of Commerce, insurance industry, and local officials will discuss the costs they face and the steps they are taking to respond.

Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine and Broward County Mayor Kristin Jacobs will talk about the innovative Southeast Florida Regional Climate Action Plan to tackle climate change and the ways the federal government can help. The action plan includes a greenhouse gas emissions registry for Southeast Florida and strategies for coordinated emission reductions. It also guides coordinated regional adaptation measures based on local sea level rise projections and increased local impacts from tropical storms.

Partners needed: Preparing for climate realities and reducing risk

Florida’s community leaders take seriously their responsibility to get it right, not just for their residents, but for the rest of the country, too. They know that eventually, coastal communities, whether in Portland, Maine, or Malibu, California, will be looking to them to see how to handle critical decisions about how to adapt to sea level rise over the coming years.

Kristin Jacobs

When President Obama launched the federal Climate Action Plan, he tapped Kristin Jacobs, mayor of Broward County in South Florida, and other mayors, governors, and tribal leaders to serve on a task force to consider how best to support localities in their resilience efforts. In an NPR interview, Mayor Jacobs said, “As long as we are accepting what the future looks like and addressing it, not just from the local standpoint, but with our state partners and our federal partners, I believe this country is going to get to where it needs to go, but I think it starts locally, and it is that engine that’s driving this process forward.”

It is good to see one of Florida’s U.S. senators becoming a partner to his state’s leadership in resilience planning and reducing the risks of climate change. But all members of Congress represent communities that are challenged in some way by heat waves, or stronger North Atlantic hurricanes, sea level rise, and other climate consequences.

In the upcoming congressional recesses — Memorial Day, Independence Day and most of August — will other members of Congress take their heads out of the sand and partner with local leaders to make our country more resilient?

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/florida-costs-of-climate-change-492/feed2http://blog.ucsusa.org/florida-costs-of-climate-change-492Top 5 Ways the Latest IPCC Review of Climate Change Reflects the U.S. Experiencehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/ulDMjgUV7qc/top-5-ways-the-latest-ipcc-review-of-climate-change-reflects-the-u-s-experience-469
http://blog.ucsusa.org/top-5-ways-the-latest-ipcc-review-of-climate-change-reflects-the-u-s-experience-469#commentsTue, 01 Apr 2014 20:05:04 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=28355Reading the summary of the IPCC report on climate impacts, I was struck by the parallels between the major findings and the observed trends in the U.S.

The report summarizes eight key risks that people, policy makers, and communities will be facing as a result of the carbon pollution that is causing widespread, systematic changes to the climate. While the IPCC’s list wouldn’t exactly make Buzzfeed, Seth Borenstein simplified it so that it might and managed to report bad news with good humor.

What isn’t so funny is the prospect of more extremes in our future.

UCS has been highlighting the climate impacts affecting specific parts of the U.S. We’ve embarked on a series of climate impacts reports, informed by workshops, roundtables, and conferences around the country exploring how sea level rise, flooding, extreme heat, dry spells, and intensified storms are challenging communities across the nation.

The combination of warming and drying trends predicted is particularly resonant. UCS has documented the increase in the incidence of heat waves in the Midwest along with its implications for human health, particularly in cities.

The IPCC also notes that North American adaptation needs are in the areas of forest management and municipal planning to reduce the impact of worsening wildfires and that greater resilience measures are needed for critical services. In the coming months we’ll be releasing reports outlining steps to electricity system resilience and the economic impacts of western wildfires.

Climate change in North America will be marked by warming and drying trends, extreme precipitation, hurricanes, and sea level rise.

Small island nations and poor countries are especially vulnerable to this aspect of climate change and sadly are more likely to have a greater risk of loss of life during these events.

Here in the U.S. too, events like Hurricane Sandy show that lower income communities suffer particularly harshly during and after the disaster. Those most exposed were hard hit and highlighted inequalities from historic shoreline protection projects and emergency response to restore infrastructure disruptions. This demonstrates the unique vulnerability that low-income communities will face even in a country like ours with greater resources to adapt.

Extreme weather has driven the federal flood insurance program into a debt of over $24 billion, a program that will be even more essential, given the IPCC predictions for sea level rise. In South Florida, cities are actively contemplating the disruption of livelihoods sea level rise will bring and have enacted a ‘four county compact’ that includes over 100 recommended steps to adapt to climate change and reduce the risks.

California’s recent drought caught the attention of the nation, as President Obama visited to announce his resilience fund proposal. It has also spurred rare bipartisan support for a drought relief bill sponsored by California Senator Diane Feinstein.

In a guest post, our California climate scientist, Juliet-Christian Smith points out that long-term changes in the way we manage water are going to be needed. Climate-resilient water management solutions needed include better groundwater management, urban water conservation, and more efficient agricultural water uses.

The IPCC report focuses a lot on risk management. “It’s much more about what are the smart things to do than what do we know with absolute certainty,” said Chris Field, a Stanford scientist who co-chaired the report committee.

In California, New York, and Florida, they have gone a long way to identify what some of those smart things are that they can do, and are at varying stages in implementing those measures. Fifteen states have completed adaptation plans and 59 percent of U.S. cities are pursuing adaptation planning. As of June 2012, 13 percent of U.S. cities have completed an assessment of their vulnerabilities and risks.

While the U.S. is far from being on track to reduce emissions as deeply as we needed, there are several new national measures in the wings and some proven state policies that will go a long ways to reducing domestic greenhouse gases emissions.

The EPA power plant carbon rules, due out for public comment June 1 of this year, will represent the first ever carbon limitations on electricity-generating power plants. If the EPA issues a strong rule it will be up to the states to create ambitious low-carbon energy plans.

California is already demonstrating the benefits of a low-carbon economy. As they continue implementation of AB32, a law aimed at reducing emissions, they are now beginning the process of setting a new emissions reduction goal for 2030.

Regional carbon trading regimes are also making progress on emissions reductions and beginning to set more ambitious goals as well. The Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative recently implemented a new 2014 RGGI cap of 91 million short tons, which will decline 2.5 percent each year from 2015 to 2020.

State policies like the RES have substantially contributed to the tremendous growth of renewable energy in this country since the 1990s and resulted in significant emissions reductions. Over the last year, efforts to repeal these laws have been attempted and repelled in dozens of states.

Just last week, Kansas rejected an attempt to repeal its RES for the second time largely because of the demonstrated economic benefits clean energy development has brought to the state. Now states like Michigan and Minnesota are in the process of strengthening their RES laws, potentially ramping up the percentage of their electricity from renewable sources to 30 to 40 percent.

State and regional climate and clean energy policies, combined with recent bipartisan efforts to address drought and disaster relief, provide some glimmers of hope that the U.S. can come together around common sense measures to reduce some of the risks of climate change.Those signals, combined with the dramatic rise in renewable energy production in the past year and the opportunity every state in the union will have over the next two years to draft a low-carbon energy plan makes me very hopeful that we will do some of those ‘smart things’ the IPCC report seeks to highlight.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/top-5-ways-the-latest-ipcc-review-of-climate-change-reflects-the-u-s-experience-469/feed5http://blog.ucsusa.org/top-5-ways-the-latest-ipcc-review-of-climate-change-reflects-the-u-s-experience-469What’s the Big Idea in President Obama’s Budget? Building Resilience to Climate Consequences.http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/Pjf1GhjPu1s/president-obamas-budget-building-resilience-to-climate-consequences-440
http://blog.ucsusa.org/president-obamas-budget-building-resilience-to-climate-consequences-440#commentsThu, 06 Mar 2014 19:35:41 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=27782To Washington insiders, the release of the president’s budget is a rather ho-hum event. Congress has all but abandoned any adherence to the official budget process, but President Obama this week did submit to Congress a proposed budget as required. Although this budget does not have the force of law, it does give him the chance to recommend important initiatives. His proposal for a Resilience Fund should be a conversation starter.

Taxpayers are already footing the bill for some aspects of climate change through disaster relief. If funded, the president’s proposal would help communities prepare for climate change and could reduce the need for costly bailouts in the future.

Resilience funding is essential to confront the consequences of climate change already being felt. It is an essential, but inadequate response to climate change. Congress needs to get behind the Resilience Fund, but it also needs to get serious about reducing the risks of the changing climate. Unless and until we start cutting emissions that cause global warming, the problems communities are facing, and their price tags, will continue to grow.

How much does climate change cost?

The Resilience Fund confronts members of Congress with the reality that climate change is already costing the country — and their constituents — economically. Coastal flooding, wildfires, and declining water resources are affecting people where they live and work. Everything from food prices to homeowners’ insurance rates is being affected by climate change. When these costs of living increase, people who are already struggling economically are the most vulnerable.

Southeast Florida knows well the costs of sea level rise. Miami Beach is spending more than $200 million to overhaul its drainage system compromised by sea level rise. Fort Lauderdale is looking at similar expenses. During certain high tides, seawater backs up into stormwater pipes, flooding streets and neighborhoods.

Building resilience

The Resilience Fund is part of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative in the President’s budget. It will support research to better understand the projected impacts of climate change; provide resources to help communities plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change and encourage local measures to reduce future risk; and fund breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure.

John Holdren, the president’s science advisor, provided some specific details of what the fund would support in this blog post, including:

$400 million to FEMA for hazard mitigation and preparedness assistance

Grants to NOAA and Interior for coastal resilience

EPA state grants to protect water quality

USDA efforts to reduce wildfire risk

Research on sea level rise forecasts, distributed generation, and microgrids

Reducing risk

Renewing the production tax credit for wind energy — another aspect of the president’s budget — is one small way lessen our reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. Coal-importing states like Michigan and Minnesota are actively considering strengthening their state renewable energy standards. California, with the most ambitious clean energy requirement in the country, is proving that a low-carbon economy can work. The EPA rules regulating carbon emissions from power plants, expected out later this year, are an even more powerful way to limit greenhouse gases and promote low-carbon energy.

These incremental energy and climate policies are all essential steps to take to address climate change. But our scientists at UCS, along with many others around the world, are telling us that we are reaching dangerous levels of warming — bringing unavoidable impacts of climate change.

Let’s hope the president’s Resilience Fund and other aspects of his Climate Action Plan succeed in spurring a national demand for action that Congress can no longer ignore.

Despite a global commitment to hold rising global average temperature below 2 degrees C, (3.6 F), the current emissions trajectory will result in increases between 4 and 6 degrees C (7.2 or 10.8°F) by the end of the century. Source: U.S. Global Change Research Program

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/president-obamas-budget-building-resilience-to-climate-consequences-440/feed2http://blog.ucsusa.org/president-obamas-budget-building-resilience-to-climate-consequences-440President Obama’s State of the Union: Will Climate Change Get Left Out in the Cold?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/yVrduCGQ9rk/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-will-climate-change-get-left-out-in-the-cold-388
http://blog.ucsusa.org/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-will-climate-change-get-left-out-in-the-cold-388#commentsFri, 24 Jan 2014 14:26:31 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=26714As the president prepares to take the podium for the State of the Union speech, much of the country has just been released from the grip of the dreaded polar vortex, single digit temperatures, wind chills and snow, and shortages of home heating oil in the Midwest and Northeast. Does he dare remind Congress and the country of the Climate Action Plan he unveiled this past summer, delivered on a hot June day?

Let’s hope he does.

President Obama still has the bully pulpit. He has only just begun using it in earnest to mobilize the nation on climate change, but it is beginning to work.

The president’s Georgetown climate speech was delivered during breaking news of the Snowden leaks and a Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act. And it still was given reasonably prominent coverage on cable news channels.

Some preliminary research we’re doing indicates that prime time cable news shows discussed climate change an average of about 50 times a month in 2013. In January, after the president’s Inaugural Address and State of the Union speech, prime time cable news shows ran climate change stories nearly 180 times. Clearly, the president can still do much to set the agenda.

A growing body of evidence indicates that Arctic air could reach into the mid-latitudes more often as more Arctic sea ice disappears. Image: NOAA

All across the nation, communities are adjusting to their own new normal. In places like South Florida, it isn’t winter that is challenging, it is the recurrent flooding that comes with higher tides with sea level rise and more intense precipitation events that are swamping existing storm water drainage systems, requiring expensive modifications. South Floridians are intentionally preparing for these changes with their own climate action plans.

California has many local climate adaptation plans as well as a recently updated statewide plan draft, along with the most forward-looking policy on carbon emissions in the nation. But still they face an extreme drought and a fire season that now lasts all year. There’s no question we have to do much more and that the federal government must do its part.

Coping with the consequences and reducing the risks

Mayors and other local officials gathered together in December to begin shaping a new relationship with the federal government on climate resilience. Mayors at a UCS-sponsored meeting just the day before the first meeting of President Obama’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience previewed their message to Washington: Lead or get out of the way. Mayors emphasized that the impacts of climate change are local. They would like to see Congress act to reduce risk from carbon emissions and provide support for resilience planning, but they can’t afford to wait.

But the president’s plan has some other tools to help minimize the damage and destruction caused by rising temperatures and disrupted weather patterns. The forthcoming EPA carbon standard for power plants is the cornerstone of the president’s plan. The transportation sector has already begun reducing its carbon pollution and it is high time to add the energy sector.

The president’s plan also charges every agency in the federal government to look for ways to make our nation more resilient and increasingly aggressive in conserving energy and deploying more wind, solar, and other clean sources of energy.

Still, one part of the president’s June speech escaped the notice of many observers. He was clear to say that administrative actions alone are like “tapping the brakes” on our emissions. Clearly, more will need to be done.

Who’ll join the president’s call to climate action?

The president can and should call on Congress to do its part to pass laws that will complement his Climate Action Plan and enable deeper cuts in carbon pollution. But don’t hold your breath. This Congress would have difficulty agreeing on what color the sky is. The 113th Congress has passed just 58 laws so far, the lowest since 1947. And all too many members of Congress deny the reality of climate change and show no interest in taking responsible action to address it.

Climate change — in cold weather or warm — remains one of the biggest problems of our generation. There are a few moments each year when the president can traditionally command our attention when it comes to important issues. Taking climate seriously — and talking about it publicly — can go a long way toward helping the nation understand the facts and the risks that come with a warming world. Eventually Congress will come around. But for now, the president’s continued public commitment to climate action can help plant seeds that state and local leaders can cultivate to strengthen our resilience and spur innovation and investment in a clean energy solutions.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-will-climate-change-get-left-out-in-the-cold-388/feed4http://blog.ucsusa.org/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-will-climate-change-get-left-out-in-the-cold-388Consumers, Carbon Majors, and the Start of a New Conversation about Climate Changehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/0fHCjG4gsLs/consumers-carbon-majors-and-climate-change-348
http://blog.ucsusa.org/consumers-carbon-majors-and-climate-change-348#commentsTue, 17 Dec 2013 19:03:25 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=25693Yesterday I read in the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business blog that it is silly for UCS to suggest that consumers are “being tricked, bullied or seduced into burning fossil fuels…” Economist Severin Borenstein responded to an article in the recent edition of the UCS e-newsletter regarding groundbreaking new research that documents that 90 private companies or state-sponsored enterprises produced two-thirds of the carbon that has been released since the Industrial Revolution. Borenstein’s critique is one of many different reactions to this research so far. He raises some new points and he echoes others raised by Andy Revkin and some commenters on our website. So perhaps it’s time we address these interpretations of the work.

Climate accountability: A major problem

UCS is encouraging conversation about Heede’s peer-reviewed research in the journal Climatic Change because this new work pinpoints the central role played by a relatively small number of major carbon producers. This research, we hope, can start a much needed conversation about the extent to which industrial carbon producers should be held accountable for climate change.

That conversation moves a welcome step beyond more recent discussions about whether climate change is real and caused by humans. It leads us to a conversation about how to stop doing things that cause the problem, how to correct the damage done, and, yes, who should pay for mitigation and adaptation.

Severin and other commentators acknowledge that several of these energy companies have been guilty of spreading misinformation that denies the link between fossil fuels and climate change. But they seem to think that their “atrocious records at fighting regulation and disseminating misinformation” don’t bear on the discussion of responsibility or accountability.

The discussion of climate accountability is really in its infancy, and I think it may well parallel the tobacco liability wars. There were, no doubt, commentators who believed it was a fool’s errand to blame Big Tobacco for the public health problems that stemmed from their cheap cigarettes and that it was a distraction from efforts to enact needed regulation.

Block and tackle: The disinformation strategy

Like the tobacco companies, many of these energy companies have done more than simply obscure the facts. They have executed an entire playbook designed to thwart any efforts to enact laws that would have finally priced their dangerous products at a level that reflect the harm they do to our health and environment.

The strategy has been to simultaneously create doubt about their responsibility for the problems their products cause while ratcheting up concerns about the economic impact if the true cost of their products were taken into account.

Consumers have a responsibility — but the carbon majors have a bigger one

Nowhere has UCS suggested that consumers have been hoodwinked into buying fossil fuels by these energy producers, nor do we suggest that consumers have no responsibility for making choices that help to reduce heat-trapping emissions. Quite the contrary. UCS literally ‘wrote the book’ on how you can make “Cooler Smarter” energy choices. Our book documents the contributions to global warming made by all sectors of our consumer-driven economy and helps readers understand how to make purchasing decisions that will substantially reduce their carbon footprints.

There are many lenses though which to view the climate change debate — and many potential solutions to the problem. The bottom line is that we are going to need action at all levels of government, in the courts, and in the marketplace to transform our economy into one that is not systematically disrupting the climate.

Our science-based focus on the industrial carbon polluters provides a new lens that puts some of the facts of climate change in clearer relief than they had been before and ensures that all of us — including major carbon producers — do their part to address the consequences of climate change.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/consumers-carbon-majors-and-climate-change-348/feed0http://blog.ucsusa.org/consumers-carbon-majors-and-climate-change-348Can State and Local Action Kick-Start Global Cooperation on Climate?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationAngelaAnderson/~3/mxxmgEL_4rs/can-state-and-local-action-kick-start-global-cooperation-on-climate-315
http://blog.ucsusa.org/can-state-and-local-action-kick-start-global-cooperation-on-climate-315#commentsThu, 21 Nov 2013 20:08:02 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=24693Poland’s political leaders need to meet West Virginia’s State Senate President Jeff Kessler. At a recent forum on increasing economic diversity in the state, Kessler said, “Coal has been king in West Virginia for 100 years, but it hasn’t taken very good care of its subjects.” While Kessler was referring to the poverty many of the state’s largest coal producing counties have experienced, people in Poland are facing serious health consequences because of coal. One study from Bankwatch reports that living and breathing in Krakow for a year, a resident inhales as much benzopyrene, a highly carcinogenic pollutant, as he or she would from smoking 2,500 cigarettes.

While Poland’s economy is also more heavily dependent on coal than the rest of Europe, coal mining jobs have declined from more than 400,000 twenty years ago to about 115,000 today. And Poland has been a net importer of coal since 2009. Similarly, in the U.S. states like West Virginia have both an economic and cultural connection to coal that is rapidly producing fewer and fewer jobs due largely to new mining practices, but also due to shifts away from burning coal for electricity to cleaner alternatives.

The clear news globally is that coal is declining and renewables are on the rise. In Warsaw, the United Kingdom Energy Minister announced that it would join the U.S. in opposing any World Bank funding of coal plants except in extreme circumstances. He said it’s “completely illogical” for developed countries to continue to provide financing for coal power plants abroad while shifting to cleaner sources at home.

Across the Pond, Canada and the U.S. are increasingly switching away from coal to natural gas and renewables. Coal-fired electricity fell from nearly half of U.S. generation in 2008 to 37 percent in 2012, while wind and solar quadrupled over this period. Earlier this week, Ontario announced that its last two operating coal plants, its giant Nanticoke complex — one of the world’s largest — and the Lambton station, on the Michigan border, will shut down by year’s end.

The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) announcement last week to retire 3,300 MW of coal capacity is further evidence of the eroding economic viability of the aging U.S. coal fleet. It continues the national drumbeat of more than 55,000 MW of coal capacity that has either been retired since 2009 or announced for retirement over the next several years. UCS’ “Ripe for Retirement” analysis shows that many more U.S. coal generators are economically vulnerable and should be considered for closure. Strong national carbon standards for new and existing power plants will be needed to ensure this trend continues, especially as natural gas prices slowly rise.

Poland relies heavily on coal to power its economy, but it does have alternatives. Lisa Friedman at Greenwire posted a terrific article looking at the challenges to renewables deployment in Poland, in sharp contrast to its German neighbor, which has a strong policy support for renewables. Backed by a feed-in tariff and long-term incentives, Germany is the world leader in installed photovoltaic capacity — about 30 GW in 2012. Poland has no similar policy support. The results are clear: there are 1,800 renewable energy installations in Poland for electricity generation, compared to 4 million in Germany. In 2007, Germany also decided to completely phase-out black coal mining by 2018.

In the U.S., state action on clean energy and climate has been an essential driver for reducing carbon emissions for over a decade. State laws like AB 32 in California and regional efforts like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast and the more recently announced Pacific Coast Collaborative are creating growing demand for clean energy.

Even more emissions reductions are likely to come from the states. As the map below indicates, many states have renewable electricity standards that will achieve their targets over the course of this decade. New targets will have to be set to continue the transition away from coal to renewables. Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and California are already debating ways to strengthen their standards.

The real action on emissions reductions in the U.S. and around the globe appears to be at the state and provincial level, and sometimes even cities. For example, China announced in Warsaw that Beijing and Shanghai will launch emissions trading markets next week joining two other regional markets in China. The regional carbon markets cap CO2 emissions from electricity generators and manufacturers, and force companies that emit more than their cap to buy permits in the market from companies with surplus allowances. Hubei province and the cities of Tianjin and Chongqing also plan carbon markets as China gears up to launch a nationwide scheme later in the decade, potentially the world’s biggest.

While these new initiatives in China are welcome, it is unclear whether it will be enough. The biggest increase in conventional coal (without CCS) is happening in China and India, and is projected to get worse over time. UCS recently signed on to a statement by 27 leading climate and energy scientists from around the world that no new coal plants should be built without carbon capture and storage. Greater deployment of CCS, and ramping up investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency will be necessary to have a chance at meeting global climate targets.

In Warsaw, the international regime is considering including state and provincial actions in their accounting of emissions reduction commitment. This seems to be a terrific idea, since that may well be where the real action on emissions reductions and even carbon pricing will occur.

The West Virginia Senate President made his comments on coal as he backed a campaign to create a “future fund” that would set aside tax dollars from the Marcellus Shale natural gas boom for improving education, infrastructure, and economic development. While this effort is not aimed at coal, and is a far cry from a carbon tax, the growing awareness by states that they are facing real economic environmental and health threats from burning coal may well spur more ambitious state efforts to impose fees on the companies that profit from selling them.

As the Warsaw meeting has us all ‘thinking globally,’ as always, we must all be ‘acting locally.’ To meet the climate challenge, the U.S. and other countries will need to adopt strong policies that build on the great efforts and success at the state and local levels.